The Christian conservative website WorldNetDaily has got its undies in a twist over an option that permits same-sex couples in Hasbro's The Game of Life.

The downloadable PC title is an update of the classic board game of the same name. WND writes:

The online version of a popular board game from many Americans' childhood includes an option for players to choose homosexual marriage and child-rearing as a way of life... even children can download and play a free trial version of The Game of Life, the first game ever created by Mr. Milton Bradley in 1860.

The player's first option in the online version is to choose a persona based on pictures that clearly depict men and women. Shortly thereafter, the game invites players to choose a spouse, regardless of the potential spouse's sex...

But, as WND notes, the modern version of the board game, created in 1960, allowed for gay unions as well:

The board game did not prevent players in any way from placing two pink or two blue pegs in the front seat [of the playing piece representing the family car], thus depicting a homosexual couple.

GP: Got this tip from none other than Jack Thompson during the course of seeking comment on last night's passage of the Utah video game bill.

He wasn't "running over" christians, he was simply calling out a frienge group of christians over their, frankly, behind the times "beliefs"

The reason I put beliefs in quotes is these people are not following it as they should. These people, instead of practicing their faith, are using it as an excuse, a crutch to justify their own personal hatreds.

The only reason we are "intolerant" of christians is because they are "intolerant" to everyone else that happens to have a different life view. Honestly, if Christians could just leave well enough alone and mind thier own god damned business when it comes to OTHER PEOPLE'S Lifestyles, then we wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Any intolerance or hatred that any Christian's happen to feel from these comments deserve it, frankly. If you don't want to experience the hatred from the MILLIONS of people you offend daily with YOUR hate speech and YOUR intolerance, then get a grip and think for yourself. If you can't do that, then SHUT THE HELL UP AND MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS when it comes to how other people choose to live THIER lives.

If you can't keep you mouths shut on issues that DON'T AFFECT YOU than I see no reason to keep myself from bashing and insulting every homophobic, backwards thinking, moronic, stupid, sheep of a human (IF you can call them that) Christian who can't think for themselves because the big magic guy in the sky might send you to an imaginary fire place where the other big magic guy will sodimize you with his pitchfork for eternity.. (Which some of you Hypocritical Christians are bound to enjoy)

"The only reason we are "intolerant" of gamers is because they are "intolerant" to everyone else that happens to have a different life view. Honestly, if gamers could just leave well enough alone and mind their own god damned business when it comes to OTHER PEOPLE'S Lifestyles, then we wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Any intolerance or hatred that any gamers' happen to feel from these comments deserve it, frankly. If you don't want to experience the hatred from the MILLIONS of people you offend daily with YOUR video games and YOUR intolerance, then get a grip and think for yourself. If you can't do that, then SHUT THE HELL UP AND MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS when it comes to how other people choose to live THEIR lives.

If you can't keep you mouths shut on issues that DON'T AFFECT YOU than I see no reason to keep myself from bashing and insulting every backwards thinking, moronic, stupid, sheep of a human (IF you can call them that) gamer who can't think for themselves."

Nope. I would if any of that were actually gamers' stances. Seriously, in order for that argument to work, you'd have to prove that gamers were trying to force parents and those who do not like them to play video games. For the most part, no... we actually don't give a care unless you try to take them from us.

What? That makes no sense. We as games dont try to force others to play violent games. We just want others to leave us alone so we can enjoy our lives the way we see fit. If anything Gamers are Akin to the GBLT Community in that argument..

Gratz on replacing random words in my post to try and sound smart, though.. you ALMOST pulled it off.. Then I realized that you are full of Crap.

I never once stated that they WEREN'T free to speak how they want. I was just stating that they whine and bitch and moan about how WE live OUR lives, trying to force us into the lifestyle THEY CHOOSE FOR US. Then, when we have a visceral reaction to said attempts to change US based on a belief system WE DON'T BELIEVE IN, they then claim that they are victims of hate speech. My point was, IF you don't want to be the target of "religious intolerance" then don't target us FIRST.

You are free to speak your mind and say whatever you want, however, speech still has it's consequences. You can't walk up to me, call me names, and say mean, vicious, things about me, then complain when I punch you in the mouth. Which, by the way, is EXACTLY what all of these poor, conservative, christian "victims" are doing.

You do realize that threatening people with "religious intolerance" if they dare speak their beliefs is just as wrong as what you claim all Christians do right?

The majority of us don't want our beliefs forced on anyone. Do we want people to give their lives to Christ? Yes. However that must be a choice freely made, otherwise it's irrelevant. You and only you can choose to live your life a certain way, and I've never made claims to the contrary. I just think that people need to stop screaming at one another for having different beliefs. It's counter productive and only leads to more screaming and more immature name calling.

We are religious intolerant because were have things like Prop 8 going around. We are fine when you disagree with gay marriage, however taking rights away isn't right. Devaluing good people to the public isn't right either. We are fine with people who have the views like Obama when they do not like or agree with gay marriage, however, he does not agree with actions like Prop 8.

And I would agree, but until We have every right, protection, and garuntee that you, as heterosexuals have under the government, while married, we will not stop making noise. If YOU want it to stop, then encourage the government to put us on equal ground.

DON'T FIGHT AGAINST IT, because when you do, you are bringing every bit of criticism upon yourself. Until Christians fight FOR equality, rather than AGAINST it, I will be intolerant. I WILL be intolerant of people who stand in the way of Equality and Freedom.

I WILL be intolerant of people who insist that we live our lives the way THEY see fit. I WILL be intolerant of EVERY PERSON who thinks that being Gay or Bi is WRONG, because I cannot and will not change who I am, and neither can you. You can either take a stand FOR US, or get the HELL out of our way, because WE are NEVER going to stop.

While I don't think we should be intolerant of everyone who thinks that being gay or bi is wrong- they're as entitled to their opinion as we are- I agree that the GBLT community should not shut up until they have every civil right that heterosexuals have. It's not the people who just think it that invoke my ire; it's the people who think they have the right to deny others rights because of their opinion of something that's truly none of their business.

Just because a person believes that homosexuality or bisexuality is wrong, doesn't mean that they'll act hateful toward a person. I can say that I believe actions are wrong without treating a person poorly. It falls into the whole "do unto others" thing that I believe in.

Now that doesn't mean I'll lend my support to something that I don't believe in, but it also doesn't mean that I'll act in a cruel manner to people either.

I'm having trouble articulating what I want to say. If this comes across as offensive, I apologize; I do not mean to be.

If you have voted against measures that would grant gays and lesbians the right to marry, adopt kids, prevent employers from discriminating against them just because they are gay, have spousal rights, etc... In my opinion, you are acting in a cruel manner. You are actively helping to inhibit a group of people from having the same rights you do. On what basis? Your personal opinion.

Are you suggesting that people should give up their personal opinions?

It was written in the Constitution that was we do have certain unalienable rights yet it sounds like you are saying that exercising those rights is wrong (no twisted pun intended).

I am more than happy to respect the beliefs of another if they would offer the respect in turn or at least have a debate (not a name calling arguement) so I can understand them better, but I will not give up my beliefs/opinion regardless of what you (uses in the general term nothing personal) say.

Sorry but you cannot just turn off your opinions, you can moderate them, expand them, keep them to yourself or share them but they will always be with you in some form. And being that you are not me than mine is not always going to jive with yours as they are colored by different experiences, history, gender, age etc. Does not make anyone wrong, it just is.

Pretty sure this is the reason we have this thing called majority voting.

That said, I said nothing about his opinions on this issue, nor did I say he shouldn't vote as he wishes.

His statement was that he wouldn't treat someone he disagrees with in a cruel manner.

My statement was that if he helps to restrict the rights of the group he disagrees with, purely based on his opinion, I felt he is acting cruelly.

Two different statements. He could have the opinion that mine is full of bunk and go to a pro-prop. 8 rally for all I care. I was pointing out a flaw in his statement. Feel free to vote however you wish. I just think that it's hypocritical to say one thing and do something that is, in practice, completely different.

He is saying that you are more entitled to your Personal Opinion, however, if you have ever voted against another human being's civil rights, based on the fact that you don't think they should have civil rights, then you have performed an act of Cruelty to that person.

One thing that I have learned is that you should never have to leave the option of a Civil Rights issue, especially an unpopular Civil Rights issue, up to a popular vote. People in general are too bigoted, short sighted, and stupid to vote to allow someone "Different" the same rights as themselves.

Agreed. When the Netherlands held the referendum about the "European Constitution" (and they only called it that because they thought it would help make people want it, which backfired), I literally heard someone on the bus say they voted against because they wanted to annoy our prime minister. And right now, a xenophobic politician is having a surge in popularity because he's being prosecuted for discrimination. "The people" are stupid most of the time.

I hate the "majority vote" argument. Hate it, hate it, hate it, because that doesn't take into account "mob rule". Might doesn't make right, and too many people are simply too egocentric to recognize that their personal opinion that is usually based primarily on religion is NOT sufficient reason to cause other people to suffer... or even that they are helping to cause suffering.

There are many cases in which majority vote would have failed if it was allowed to be the "law of the land" instead of... ya know... the law of the land.

I do love how they teach you in school to accept people's differences, and that everyone is the same, and nobody should be treated differently or cruelly, yet, when it comes time to vote, America Practices the exact opposite of what they are taught in schools.

That was actually very well articulated. If they are offended by that, then they sure have some thin Skin. LOL

You are 100% correct though. If you have ever actively voted against any measures preventing civil rights to the GBLT community, then you have performed a cruel Act. You are preventing someone from having the same rights as you do because you don't have the same belief system.

Its that "Us and Them" mentality that is driving a wedge into this country. Instead of attacking the other side, talk to them, try to compromise. It seems that compromise isn't even in our vocabulary these days. Sure, you may object to the other parties views, but remeber they are human just like you, and had you grown up in a different location, you could be that person.

By stating that "They are wrong, and are bad/misled/ignorant" you are acting in the same manner as they are, no matter how true your words may be. To heal this rift in cultures we need to learn to compromise. For instance, with regards to gay marriage, simply create a different name for it while giving those involved the same legal rights and whatnot as everyone else. Yes, both parties will not get exactly what they want (since its not either banned or completely the same as normal marriage), but its a step towards an integration of these two now seperate cultures. With time, the benefits and cons of each will become clear to both parties, and allow for better conflict resolution.

Unfortunatly, this is probably a pipe dream. Humans do have that innate tendacy towards conflict. But I can dream can't I?

I've always had the opinion that, since people insist that "marriage" is a Christian institution, allow people to have a Christian (or whatever religion) marriage, but if you want the legal benefits the government gives for that, you need to also apply for a civil union.

In other words, marriage liscence becomes a voluntary, religious thing.

Civil unions become the legally recognized form of "marriage" and grants the same rights to everyone.

People still slam that, however, because it would grant the same rights to gays as it would heterosexuals. That is the problem. You can say that the pro-gay marriage side doesn't want to compromise all you want; however, what is at contention is that gays and lesbians want the same rights heterosexuals have, and certain groups of heterosexuals want those rights to be exclusive to them.

It's kind of hard to compromise when one side is pretty much saying, "You don't deserve what we have."

I don't really know a lot about it, so forgive me if anything I say here is wrong.

I've been hearing a lot of argument recently about domestic partnerships. There is some sort of proposal to give unmarried, but not necessarily homosexual or even romantically involved, pairs of people living together similar benefits to those receieved by married couples.

On one side, everything I hear is people shouting that it's just another name for gay marriage.

On the other, I only hear arguments on how it could benefit people other than homosexuals. The only specific example I can remember was about a young woman and her grandmother who live together, both work, and really need the government benefits to keep going. I'm pretty sure it was entirely hypothetical though.

It's like one side is afraid of gays being treated like people, and the other is afraid of the first side realizing that they're simply okay with homosexuality.

I guess my point is something along the lines that people won't just sit down, talk, and come to an understanding, even if the only alternative is to scream in each other's faces until someone gets hit.

I agree with this. And with regards to the earlier comment, I believe compromise could work these situations out as well. For its not as if a single compromise solves the issue, it mearly starts it rolling in a constructive direction. If African Americans had recieved more popular and political support initially, I think that a progressive series of compromises could've brought us to the current day sitaution while healing some of the animosity between the two groups. In the end, though some of the steps might seem demeaning to one or both groups involved, the final result will be something both agree with (though this may take a great deal of time).

There is no black and white (pardon the pun) in the world, only shades of grey.

First of all: For people who's morals and ethics are deeply rooted in thier religion, the word "Comprimise" doesn't exist. Likewise for the people who (rightly) believe that we should be on EXACTLY equal footing as everybody else. You NEVER comprimise when faced with civil rights issues.

If Lincoln Had Comprimised over the slave issue, would it be OK if only SOME people were slaves, or perhaps Every African American had to be Enslaved Part time?

Or what about when women were fighting for thier rights? Would it be a comprimise if they were only beat by thier mysoginistic husbands when they "deserved" it? Or a comprimise result in Women only being allowed to work SOME Corporate Positions?

I'd imagine that some people would think it OK, to comprimise on this issue, too. "Oh, thank God they are just pretending to get married, at least our Real Marriage is better!" Or "Well, hey, at least they are only allowed to adopt kids that are already Gay, so they are a lost cause anyways!"

NO.. It doesn't work like that. THERE IS NO COMPRIMISE when it comes to Civil Rights, Not 200 years ago, Not 50 years ago, and NOT NOW. I would say it is all or nothing, but Nothing really isn't an option. We WILL get the civil rights we deserve, regardless of what the dissenters say.

Aye to that! There is no comprimise, we are talking about human life and human rights! There should be no need to comprimise. There shouldn't be a comprimise. Deal with it. Hate it or love it, deal with it. Heterosexual, Bisexual, Homosexual, wtf ever, we all deserve, no, are born, with the rights of being human in this country.

Do you have any idea what it is like to be treated as something horrible? Something spawned from the depths of Hell. If you say yes, I truly doubt it, at least, to the extent we, those of use who are often targets of Christian ire, are treated.

That is fine, that you do not wish to have your beliefs pushed on others. Yet, in spite of the idea of "free choice" it is often taught that we are going to Hell, a place of the worst punishment, for an eternity. While we do not believe in such a place, that greater issue, is the hate behind said words, directed at us.

I will never "scream" at a Christian for not believing in my paganism. Hell, my girlfriend is a Christian and we have worked past it peacefully. But, that is not always what the "screaming" is about, sometimes, it is about how vile we are, how we are supposed to endure the worst of punishments.

True, while the most loud are not necessarily respresentative, is it not, however, common teaching among some denominations of your religion that this the case?

Actually yes I do know what it's like to be treated like less than a person. That's why I work to treat other people as I want to be treated. The whole "do unto others" that Jesus taught. I can believe that certain behaviour is a sin and still treat that person as I want to be treated. I'll still pray for others, because I do so out of love for them. I want to see them become their best, and I care about people and where their souls will end up.

In talking about Hell though there's been a massive misunderstanding, or at the very least a miscommunication. When Christians talk about Hell we're not doing so out of hating anyone. From our perspective it's like warning someone about and emminent threat to them. We're doing so out of a sense of not wanting them to end up there. There are those, like the Westborough Cult, who revel in such things, but they are NOT indicative of the whole of Christianity.

Most of my non-Christian friends know how I believe and they know that I pray for them. I'm totally open about those things. They also know that when I talk about things it's not that I hate them, it's that I care about them. Ideally that's how we're supposed to act.

That doesn't mean we're going to agree with certain things, like gay marriage, but conversely that doesn't mean we hate people either.

Oh really? So you know what it is like to be persecuted against by a majority. You know what it is like, to have these shows on television, that say we pagans, and the homosexuals, etc. are the root of evil, that we worship the devil, that we are some kind of abomination.

Less than a person? No, we are treated, the evil spawned from Satan himself. Less than human would actually be an improvement in some.

You actually claim, you KNOW what that feels like? I somehow strongly doubt it. Sure, bitched at, perhaps. Bullied even, maybe, I'll accept that. But do you have any idea what it is like, to HIDE it from others? Something of such importance, that you have to hide who you are, out of fear of said persecution?

When was the last time you were blamed for a natural disaster? Or the death of our soldiers. Or blamed for causing some kind of great rotting in our culture? When was the last time YOUR rights as a Christian were actually in question?

You can doubt it all you want but that doesn't mean that what I said was untrue.

I know very well what its like to be treated like crap because you're different. I know what it's like to be ridiculed every freaking day to the point where you want to kill yourself. The difference is that I chose not to hide. I made the choice to be who I was and not care that people were jerks. It still hurt and it was still lonely, but I survived so don't think you know my life or can say that I don't know about that kind of pain. I'm well aware of it.

For your own edification I don't treat people like that and I detest the kind of people who do. I still believe that things are wrong but that doesn't stop me from caring about people.

Oh shut up. For the love of god just put a cork in it. Everytime we speak out agsints injustice, people like you claim to be the vitcim.And from what I read on your post, it made absolutly no sense to this article as it is. Get used to it because the religons are not as nice as they make you think.

And with that, I rest my case and am done listeing to whiny people complain about how we are the source of the problem when its the other way around. >:(

Fuck Christianity. I'm so sick and tired of them and their incessant attempts to run everyone's lives. If you are a Christian and play this game, then DON'T CREATE HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES. Seriously, nobody is forcing you do do it.

Shout box

Infophile: @Matt: Apparently Dan Aykroyd actually is involved. We don't know how yet, though, but he's apparently going to be in the movie in some way.08/02/2015 - 4:17am

Mattsworkname: I still hold that not having the origonal cast invovled in any way hurts this movie, and unless the 4 actresses in the lead roles can some how measure up to the comic timing of the origonal cast, i just don't see it being a success08/02/2015 - 12:46am

Mattsworkname: Mecha: regardless of what you think of it, GB 2 was a finanical success and for it time did well with audiances ,even if it wasnt as popular as the first08/02/2015 - 12:45am

MechaTama31: I think they're better off trying to do something different, than trying to be exactly the same and having every little difference held up as a shortcoming. Uncanny valley.08/01/2015 - 11:57pm

MechaTama31: Having the original cast didn't do much for... that pink-slimed atrocity which we must never speak of.08/01/2015 - 11:56pm

Mattsworkname: Andrew: If the new ghostbusters bombs, I cant help but feel it'll be cause it removed the origonal cast and changed the formula to much08/01/2015 - 8:31pm

Andrew Eisen: Not the best look but that appears to be a PKE meter hanging from McCarthy's belt.08/01/2015 - 7:34pm

Mattsworkname: You know what game is a lot of fun? rocket league. It' s a soccer game thats actually fun to play cause your A Freaking CAR!08/01/2015 - 7:02pm

Mattsworkname: Nomad colossus did a little video about it, showing the world and what can be explored in it's current form. It's worth a look, and he uses text for commentary as not to break the immerison08/01/2015 - 5:49pm

Mattsworkname: I feel some more mobility would have made it more interesting and I feel that a larger more diverse landscape with better graphiscs would help, but as a concept, it interests me08/01/2015 - 5:48pm

Andrew Eisen: Huh. I guess I'll have to check out a Let's Play to get a sense of the game.08/01/2015 - 5:47pm

Mattsworkname: It did, I found the idea of exploring a world at it's end, exploring the abandoned city of a disappeared alien race and the planets various knooks and crannies intriqued me.08/01/2015 - 5:46pm

Andrew Eisen: Did it appeal to you? If so, what did you find appealing?08/01/2015 - 5:43pm

Mattsworkname: Its an interesting concept, but it's not gonna appeal to everyone thats for sure,08/01/2015 - 5:40pm

Andrew Eisen: That sounds horrifically boring. Doesn't sound like an interesting use of its time dilation premise either. 08/01/2015 - 5:36pm

Mattsworkname: an observer , seeing this sorta frozen world and being able to explore without any restriction other then time. no enimes, no threats, just the chance to explore08/01/2015 - 5:34pm